Ping! I'm trying to figure out what way I want to go here.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 3 December 2013 13:19, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> Am 03.12.2013 07:59, schrieb Peter Crosthwaite: >>> Currently the uintXX property adders make a read only property. This >>> is not useful for devices that want to create board (or container) >>> configurable dynamic device properties. Fix by trivially adding property >>> setters to object_property_add_uintXX. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwa...@xilinx.com> >>> --- >>> changed since v2: >>> msg typo: "trivially" >> >> Not sure if I've asked already, but these functions were added by mst >> (so let's CC him) for accessing read-only constants in ACPI code. Your >> change seems to make them writable - can anything go wrong when the >> setters are used via QMP? Maybe. But that should be an ACPI problem. It seems that the semantics of these qom/object.c APIs has been set by the lead example. Maybe just an extra arg for RD/WR flags would do the trick however? I fear we may need two separate sets of >> functions, one read-only, one read-write. > > We don't want a generically writable property for CBAR either, though: > we want the standard qdev property semantics of "writable until > realize, readonly thereafter". > Well, with a bit of replumbing I spose we could make qdev property adder framework accessible to post_init to have access to setter/getter fns that implement these semantics. Any thoughts? Regards, Peter > -- PMM >
